VENDETTA WITHOUT LIMIT: ON THE RESURRECTION OF AN OLD CASE AGAINST ARUNDHATI ROY

Print

THE CONTEXT: Recently, Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor acted against the writer Arundhati Roy and a former professor, which has led to the revival of the 13-year-old case.

MORE ON THE NEWS:

• The Prima facie case against both activists was made under Sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code.

1. 1. Section 153A: Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offence of promoting disharmony, enmity or feelings of hatred between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The offence is a cognizable offence and the punishment for the same may extend to three years, or with a fine, or with both. However, the punishment for the offence committed in a place of worship is enhanced up to five years and fine.
   2. Section 153B: Section 153B of the IPC safeguards the interests of “class of persons” and above all the “national integration” by providing punishment against assertions prejudicial to national integration.

• The First Information Report (FIR) accuses them of hate speech for disrupting social harmony and of acting in ‘public mischief’ and of sedition. It also included Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) which seeks to punish “unlawful activities”.
• It has came in the wake of the recent arrest of the Editor-in-Chief of NewsClick under an anti-terrorism law and other penal provisions.

What is Hate Speech?

• Law Commission of India, in the 267th Report, states that hate speech is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like. It can hurt individuals or groups and can lead to violence and intolerance in society.

Regulation of Hate Speech in India:

• Freedom of Speech: There is provision of freedom of speech in our fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2). It has certain restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, dignity, morality, contempt of court, defamation, or instigation of an offence.
• Indian Penal Code:

1. 1. Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC: It deals with enmity and hatred between groups.
   2. Section 295A of the IPC: It deals with intentional outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.
   3. Sections 505(1) and 505(2): It makes the publication and circulation of content that may cause hatred between different groups an offence.

• Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: It penalises encouragement of untouchability through words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise.

EXISTING SEDITION LAW

• Sedition can be broadly defined as any act that incites violence, rebellion, or resistance against the established government or its institutions. In India, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses the offence of sedition.
• It is a non-bailable offence. Punishment under Section 124A ranges from imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which a fine may be added.
• However, recently, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 has been introduced which is expected to bring about a significant transformation in the nation’s criminal justice system. It addresses the offence of sedition, although it refrains from explicitly using the term “sedition.” Instead, it characterizes the offence as “jeopardizing the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.”

ISSUES ARISING FROM THE CASE:

• Persisting intolerance: The revival of such old case seems to follow a pattern of grudge and intolerance against civil society and outspoken critics.
• Colonial mindset: The imposition of such offences shows the colonial mindset, like the British have introduced these laws to suppress legitimate forms of dissent, and the government seems to use it in a similar way.
• Undermining democratic values: India is seen primarily as a democratic country but constant use of sedition laws and terming the voice of dissent as hate speech tends to undermine the democratic values of the country.
• Against Supreme Court judgment: Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar case 1962 talked about limited application of sedition. Thus, invoking sedition charges to suppress the critics is against the judgement.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Awareness and tolerance: There is a need to promote awareness about the effects of hate speech to prevent its spread. However, there should also be awareness about the difference between hate speech and positive criticism to promote voices to encourage tolerance.
• Role of Civil Society: There is a need for a proactive role of civil society by enhancing their engagement by the measures as media literacy and dialogue to counter the menace of misuse of sedition laws.
• Use of Judiciary power: The judiciary should use its supervisory powers to sensitize the magistracy and police to the constitutional provisions protecting free speech.
• Strengthen legislation: There is a need to enforce and strengthen legislation and enforce codes for holding individuals accountable for hate speech and promote media ethics to discourage its circulation.

THE CONCLUSION: The recent charges imposed on writer and activist by authorities seems to be a breach of freedom of speech and misuse of power. In this respect, there is an urgent need to have a bias free inquiry of the case to ensure rights of the activists and to maintain peace and harmony in the society.

Note: Refer to 5^th October Mains focus for more information.

PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS

Q.1 There is a need for simplification of the procedure for disqualification of persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act” Comment. (2020)

Q.2 “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have a profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss. (2020)

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS

Q.1 The Law Commission has rightly said, “an expression of frustration over the state of affairs cannot be treated as sedition”. Comment.

Q.2 There is an ongoing debate between hate speech and free speech. In this respect, explain the laws governing hate speech and free speech in the country while differentiating between both.

SOURCE: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/vendetta-without-limit-the-hindu-editorial-on-the-resurrection-of-an-old-case-against-arundhati-roy-and-an-academician/article67412339.ece